db_set_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the persistent session side effect ('Later tools reuse this profile automatically'), the security-relevant fact that no host/password appears in chat, the credential source environment variables, and the default verification behavior via the schema's verify parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, trigger phrases come second, and the most important behavioral context (persistence, credentials, no secrets in chat) follows. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple setter tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is complete: it explains when to invoke, what the profile affects, how credentials are resolved, and the sticky-session behavior. No output schema exists, but this kind of state-setting tool does not require detailed return-value documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their aliases. The description adds useful context about credential loading and the automatic reuse behavior, but it does not add much meaning beyond what the schema already states for the parameters themselves.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Set the sticky session connection profile') and the exact accepted values ('dev', 'qa', 'default'). It also gives concrete trigger phrases, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling read/query tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool ('Call when the user says dbprofile=dev, dbprofile=qa, use Dev DB, switch to QA, etc.') and explains the sticky-session benefit for later tools. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.